When you think about it, Sonia
Sotomayor is the perfect pick for the Supreme Court—in
Barack Obama`s America.

Like Obama, himself a beneficiary
of affirmative action, she thinks
"Latina women,"because of their life experience, make better
judicial decisions than white men, that
discrimination against white men to advance people
of color is what America is all about, that appellate
courts are "where
policy is made" in the United States.

To those who believe the depiction
of our first Hispanic justice as an anti-white liberal
judicial activist, hearken to her own words.

Speaking at Berkeley in 2001, Sonia
told her audience,
"I would hope
that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her
experience would more often than not reach a better
conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn`t
lived that life."

Imagine if Sam Alito had said at
Bob
Jones University,"I would hope
that a wise white male with the richness of his life
experience would more often than not reach a better
conclusion than a Hispanic woman, who hasn`t lived that
life."

Alito would have been toast. No
explanation, no apology would have spared him. He would
have been branded for life a white bigot.

Judge Sotomayor will be excused
because the media agree with her and she is a Latina who
will use her court seat to impose upon the nation the
values of the National Council of La Raza (The Race), of
which she is a member.

Indeed, she sees this as her
mission. Speaking at Duke in 2005, Sotomayor declared:
"(The) court of
appeals is where policy is made. I know this is on tape,
[YouTube]
and I should never say that because we don`t make law I
know." She and the audience joined in the laughter.

Who were they laughing at?
Americans who still believe the role of judges is to
apply the Constitution as the Framers intended and to
interpret the law as written by our elected legislators.

In Barack Obama`s America, that is
so yesterday.

Sotomayor`s support for
discrimination against white males
was on exhibit when
Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel
of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor
sits.

Frank Ricci is the
New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia
but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an
officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of
books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for
the crucial exam. He made it, coming in sixth among 77
firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.

A problem immediately arose. Seems
that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one
were white, and he was a Hispanic.

Can`t have that. So, the New Haven
City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects,
threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any
white firemen, and called for new tests—to produce
greater diversity. In other words, get rid of at least
some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in
near or at the top of their class.

Ricci and 19 other firemen sued,
claiming they had been denied the promotions they had
won for one reason: They were white.

What did Sotomayor`s three-judge
panel do with Ricci`s appeal of the district court
decision that turned him down? She tried to kill and
bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so
Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a
hearing in the Supreme Court.

Stuart Taylor, former
New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National
Journal columnist,
charges Sotomayor with engaging"in a process so
peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the
judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions
that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly
under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or
public criticism, or both."

Had it not been for the
intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes—a Clinton appointee
outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a
dumpster—Sotomayor`s misconduct might never have been
uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied
their chance for justice.

The process by which Sotomayor was
selected testifies to what we can expect in Obama`s
America. Not a single male was in the final four. And
she was picked over the three other women because she
was a person of color, a
"two-fer."
Affirmative action start to finish.

Reading 30 of her opinions, GW law
professor Jonathan Turley found them
"notable" for
"lack of depth."

Liberal law professor and Supreme
Court expert Jeff Rosen of The New Republic reports,
after talking to prosecutors and law clerks, that
Sotomayor covers up her intellectual inadequacy by
bullying from the bench.

The lady is a lightweight.

What should Republicans on the
Senate Judiciary Committee do?

Abjure the vicious tactics
Democrats used on Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Sam
Alito. Lay out the lady`s record. And let America get a
close look at the kind of justice Barack Obama believes
in.